The average Boeing employee in South Carolina earns $23.40 an hour. Same employee in Washington State earns $44.57 an hour. The union protects the workers from being fired for no reason or for something unrelated to their employment, in South Carolina, the so called "Right to work laws" give the employer the right to fire any employee for any reason at any time. And, of course, the cheaper labor force in SC seems to be somewhat challenged by the tasks, as virtually every plane build in South Carolina has to be repaired or fixed in Everett.

Anyone who has ever been near these guys know how badly they smell, so I can't understand anyone wanting to sit next to one of them. They are so used to getting there own way that until someone stands up and says "NO", they will continue to push the issue to everyone's breaking point. Unless they paid for a full fair ticket, which I can guarantee they didn't, if they refuse to sit, they lose their place and deplane and that is the end of their ticket, no refund, no ability (even for $200) to change.

OK< I have to jump in here. I am a member of the ACLU, a retired attorney and just as concerned about my privacy as the next person, but the conversation is going in the wrong direction. First off, whether the fly around in a C182 or park a van on the ground is not the issue. They are not reading or listing to hundreds of millions of cell phone calls to find out if you are up to something, they are screening the calls looking for specific identifiers so they can locate the bad guys.
The issue is whether it is lawful to search for a criminal in this manner, and whether they are abusing their role by collecting millions of private cellphone calls. First, it is absolutely legal, if they first obtain a federal judge's approval on a search warrant. If they ask the judge for permission to search the cars of known criminals and you are stopped at the George Washington Bridge to see if you are a criminal or known terrorist, and then let go, that is not a violation of any rights that you m

Prior to my retirement, I was the attorney for a large State Trooper Union. Wages, while good, were not great. Then one day about 20 years ago, the training classes started to dwindle and after 4 consecutive classes below the "Needed" level, it became obvious that there was going to be a shortage in the number of graduates and taking into account normal and early retirement due to illness and injury both on and off the job, there was going to be a growing shortage of qualified State Troopers. The command structure responded by adding incentives to those reaching their normal retirement to remain on the job for another year, or two or five. Problem was, that the ones they were keeping were at the top end and the road patrols continued to suffer. The next time we went into wage negotiations, we demanded and got a 30% increase in starting pay and a 30% increase in the first six steps, which cover the first 5 years. That increase was immediately seen in the number of applicants, numbe

This reminds me of the early days of Citizen Band Radios. Anyone involved then will remember that after you purchased the radio, you had to make an application to the FCC for a license, which could take a month or more to receive. The FCC soon found themselves with a backlog into the hundreds of thousands and people broadcasting without a license, so they started giving license numbers to the manufacturers, who would include the same in the package with the radio. Purchasers then had a license number and only had to fill out the form and mail it. Only, they didn't bother to mail the form and the FCC had idea who was license and who wasn't. End result, they stopped worrying about it and simply set up some basic rules regarding how much power the sender could use, restrictions on modifying the units, etc.
I see the same thing coming here, and it is not at all clear that the FAA has any authority to regulate this infant enterprise. Better that they would put out some basic rules r

The recent ruling on the EPA by the Supreme Court made it clear that agencies may NOT extend their mandate simply by wishing it. There is nothing that gives the FAA control over model aviation and even though the FAA may want it, until it is given to them by Congress, they don't have the power to make rules that will hold up in court.In its 52 page decision, the court said, in relevant parts: "The Act-wide definition is not a command to regulate, but a description of the universe of substances EPA may consider regulating under the Act's operative provisions." and "Agencies empowered to resole statutory ambiguities must operate within the bounds of reasonable interpretation". Nothing in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations or the United States Code, Title 49 gives the FAA authority over model aircraft. If they want that authority, they will need to go back to congress and get the law rewritten. And good luck with that one.

Since when did facts ever get in the way of an anti-Obama post? Add up the vacations of the past 10 Presidents and first is "W", followed by old Ronnie, "we don't need no damn air traffic controllers"Raygun. Still let's jump on Obama because he is for the little guy.

Since when did facts ever get in the way of an anti-Obama post? Add up the vacations of the past 10 Presidents and first is "W", followed by old Ronnie, "we don't need no damn air traffic controllers"Raygun. Still let's jump on Obama because he is for the little guy.